If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Now MoviePass is relaunching, with the same basic concept, but a different means of bringing it to fruition. The new system still features a monthly subscriber fee ($24.99 – $39.99, depending on location), but now users get a proprietary card and a smartphone app. The app is iOS only for now; Android is forthcoming. The card acts like a prepaid credit card, which means it can be used to purchase a ticket at any theater. The concept is that users use the app to check in at a theater, and purchase their ticket with the MoviePass card. Will the system work this time?

The big problem with the previous version of MoviePass was getting exhibitors to play along. But now theaters get full price for the ticket “purchased” by MoviePass users. So the idea seems to be that the economics of the system rely on more subscribers than will actually use the pass on a regular basis. You’re buying movie insurance, in a manner of speaking. And, obviously, this system is based on the company’s ability to attract and jeep subscribers. IMAX and 3D showings (which feature higher ticket prices) aren’t yet supported, but the basic card + app system is ingenious, and could catch on.

Peter points out one issue that may be found by users in major cities like New York and Los Angeles: with this system there is no way to reserve seats ahead of time, as the use of the card is locked to the app check-in. For those used to taking advantage of reserved seating at theaters in those cities (and others) this system won’t hold much attraction.

Flight had a refreshing approach to liquor and beer in its portrayal of alcoholism: It showed the bottles.

Real bottles, not some dumb made up ****. It’s refreshing to watch a movie and not see every label turned away and see the brands we know portrayed as they ought to be. The bottles are harmless. The brands are beaten over our heads every damn day in advertisements that oftentimes do everything BUT explain the power of the booze. Budweiser, when they aren’t making awful tasting beers, apparently watches movies and gets their panties in a wad. Flight showed their products along the way as it showed a man who made bad decisions with such products and the ramifications of those decisions. In a way, Flight does Budweiser’s work for it. Alcoholism is a disease, but one which heavily factor’s in the individual’s ability to control their impulses. The utopia Budweiser sells in their ads enables alcoholics. It sells them the dream.

So Flight used their products. I think it’s safe to say that no one is going to see this movie and stop buying the products Denzel Washington uses. In fact, it’ll probably make them proud to see their brand on the big screen. When I saw Cutty Sark up there I instantly was reminded how much better the **** I drink is than it. When I saw Budweiser I was reminded I have a case of Innis & Gunn Spiced Rum Aged waiting at home.

Budweiser is insisting that Paramount obscures their product in the film.

What a crock of ****. In fact, if the film helps one person curb their destructive drinking or teaches one person about the severity of the act of risking lives under the influence then it’s safe to say Budweiser ought to be thanking the makers of the film. It’s not like it’s Van Wilder, and the film is glorifying drunken antics. It’s showing both the allure and reward of booze as well as moderation.Hypocrites.

Stop me if you've already heard this one. What do you tell a guy with two black eyes? Nothing a pair of Oompa-Loompas haven't told him twice already, apparently. No, really.

In what may be the weirdest thing you hear today, a man was allegedly assaulted in a Norfolk city center by four people, including two who were, in fact, made up to look like Willy Wonka's singing assistants.

According to police, the 28-year-old was attacked by two people (believed to be men) who had "painted orange faces and dyed green hair." In order to remove any suspicion as to what they were going for, they were also, supposedly, wearing "hooped tops."

There were also two other people, a man and a woman, who were involved in the attack but not in fancy dress, which is a shame, really, because any missed opportunity to wear a purple, velvet coat and an orange top hat is a tragedy in its own right.

The victim, who "suffered cuts to his face, nose and lip, as well as two black eyes," was, according to police reports, "hit on the head, fell to the floor and hit again." It seems unlikely that Hallmark has made a card for this, but had they, we would most certainly send the man (whose surname may or may not be "Slugworth") one with our deepest sympathies.

The attackers, regardless of stature, remain at large.

I'm sorry...but if I were attacked by Oompas I am laughing myself into submission...they can gladly have my wallet simply for the story I will be able to tell for the rest of my life!